Liontamer

Hold up there, not quite. Our Standards say, "Sound effects alone are not considered music, and submissions primarily consisting of them will not be accepted." What that rule mainly speaks against is constructing an wholly original music piece out of in-game sound effects or placing SFX & voice clips over an instrumental not based on game music, neither of which we count as VGM arrangement. There's nothing in this concept incompatible with OCR, including extended audio intros, just so that's clear to Angélique, the judges, and anyone else interested in the standards & guidelines. As far as how I'd look at the source tunes being dominant, I'd just look for the source tunes to be referenced during at least 50% of the musical portion of the track, in this case starting at :49. The gimmick is awesome, including the pseudo-voice acting with the song construction steps, which is supposed to sound robotic. I agreed somewhat with prophetik in that the overall development here feels limited. More could be done to make the steps sound like the track's evolving more substantially over time, but I also think there's enough done in terms of gradually adding parts here that can be taken in conjunction with the premise here. However, you still have to have reasonably solid production, even if the premise is reviewing the building blocks of a song. I'd just say the samples mostly sound super fake, whether it's the pizz strings, piano, claps, or mallet percussion. Stuff shouldn't sound so exposed and unrealistic. The bassline brought in at 2:25 was off-key, but seemingly wasn't a problem once it switched to arranging Bomberman Hero "Redial" at 2:57. As this point, the groove is fleshed out some more, but very stilted with textures that are thin and not fully filled out. It wasn't until the string lead at 4:33 from :20 of Ape Escape "Oceana" that it felt like the song finally had some more body to it, but it was still hamstrung by all of the other previously mentioned issues, so I can't say that things actually gelled. Until the instrumentation is humanized and given more body/realism, Angélique, this is a fun concept without the complimentary production execution. Cool stuff though so far, Angélique. Consider seeing what more you can do with it in terms of beefing up the production quality. NO (resubmit)

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Really great to hear from Tobias, who I recognize from the VGMix2 days. I'll timestamp what I could make out there, but it wasn't anywhere near what Tab had laid on in his notes as the source tune connections: :00-:46, :51-1:24, 1:30.5-1:33.5, 1:37-1:41, 1:45.5-1:49, 1:49-1:55, 2:11.5-2:24 (quiet, maybe gaps), 2:24-2:32, 2:47.5-2:49.5, 2:57.5-3:17.5, 3:27-3:34, 4:03.75-4:27, 5:03.5-5:13 Fairly generic synths to open things up, but creatively processed and within an interesting arrangement idea. Wondering how this has 2 NOs to start, but let's see. Drops off at :46, but comes back with the source melody at :55 and some nice organic-sounding beats derived from the source. Another dropoff at 1:28, and I can't tell what if anything's being referenced. Same with the line at 1:41, it doesn't sound like Mario 2, but you have the Underground backing beat from 1:49-1:55. Alright, nothing really wrong with the original section; we'll see where it goes. Arguably cluttered after more textural filler arrived at 1:56, then... OK, actually cluttered from 2:11, or, wait... damn, from 2:26-2:33 was very cluttered. Yeah, this was a bit much, but a purposeful build, so respect for paying this off. 3:35 was just a bunch of clutter, moreso at 3:50, and I'm still not recognizing anything melodically from Mario 2 for the longest time; is this ever going to circle back? When the underground melody finally came back at 4:04, it was just completely buried in muck, but thankfully sounded better from 4:12-4:27 once the soundscape cleared up. On the production side, decluttering this would be very nice, because you have sections that just descend into indistinct noise that undermines the writing and contrast you're attempting to make. But yeah, the crux of why this is deemed too liberal is because of your treatment of "Underworld Theme Part 2 Lead", which is mostly unrecognizeable. In the original, it's only a 10-note pattern, so when you've altered it as much as you have, no one would really pick it up, and I even grew up on this theme and don't recognize it here, just the part 1 section, the drum pattern, and the melody's second half from the part 2 lead. Maybe it would seem too pedestrian for the arrangement, but you didn't need to alter the part 2 melody so drastically. As long as you feel it wouldn't compromise your vision of the piece, Tobias, go more straightforward with the melody; you already have a transformative and expansive enough concept as it is. If not, no worries, and I hope you submit something else so we can finally have you posted here. NO (resubmit)

Cool sound to this; definitely nails the "Pyramid Song" style in adapting "The Serpent Trench," so this should have some fun crossover appeal. I didn't like the hiss that was present from the start, which came off like unintended distortion; that part wasn't a stylistic homage to Radiohead either. Then I hear the warbling at :36; I still didn't like that part there, then from 1:10-1:13, the drums sounded like they were clipping (and again to a lesser extent at 2:59-3:01). Nice guitar lead at 1:32, though it was getting swallowed up into the rest of the soundscape, even moreso from 2:07-on. I liked the voice taking over the melody at 2:48 as well, which helped this not drag out. I still don't get what the hiss, distortion, or mud were for, as they don't add anything helpful, but I'll have to live with it. Would love to hear another mixing pass at this, but the concept and execution is still solid. Love the concept, Zach, and certainly hope you follow through with the NIN concept and send that one over too to complement the others. Very intrigued to hear what other ideas you've got cooking! YES

Sounds ultra-conservative to start, so we'll see where it goes. The lead at :12 wasn't my taste, but we'll see where it goes. With the dropout of the melodt at :48, I was waiting to see how this would stand apart from the original. Some beat entered in at :59 and I'm not getting a synergy with that new part together with the padding or lead. Nice drop at 1:24 though. Yeah, same with the beats at 1:35 (which were getting buried), I'm not getting the feeling that these sounds glue together. The source melody was interpreted more from 1:35-2:28, so that was a positive thing. By 2:00, I'm still feeling the soundscape is very cluttered and that the beats from 1:35-2:24 plodded, mainly because of the snare, which also had an underwhelming tone. I liked the closing section from 2:26 until the end, which had a lovely ethereal quality to it. I'd also argue the lead could stand to be changed or have some effects applied on it to give it a more complementary sound with the other instrumentation; I apologize for not better articulating why the lead and drums don't seem to work well here. I'm glad Chimpa gave feedback on how to possibly clean this up, because I agreed on the textures being too muddy. Incorporating some other ideas to help the first half stand apart from the style of the original wouldn't be a bad idea either. Solid development that still needs fine tuning on the production side. NO (resubmit)

Arrangement-wise, all good. This is solid small ensemble adaptation of Lena's source tune. So many highlights to choose from here, from the lovely EP at the opening, the immediate fluttering personalization of the melody at :29, Rebecca's copious yet gorgeous trademark chime accents, the tempo slowdown at 1:43, the pivot to the source's second half at 2:18, or the idea of the quiet, isolated textures from 3:15-3:28 before filling things back out towards the finish. When Rebecca's samples hit, they hit. I always enjoy the ornamentation of the wind chimes, for example, they're a nice touch. When they don't hit though, they sound like sketches/placeholders where you're waiting for live parts to be recorded. Some notable examples: the sudden string decay at :52, very robotic and flat woodwinds at 1:09 (most exposed from 1:13-1:21), 3:05, and 3:13 (yikes at the oboe (?) at 3:24; it's basically the only thing playing when it drops in volume but has no resonance), the sudden string change at 1:47, the mechanical piano/keyboard notes from 3:15-3:28. Would love to hear another pass at this to mitigate the realism issues, and I could see the case being made to ask for a resubmission, but what's here is OK for the most part, so we ride! YES

Yeah, this would have been gold back in ye olden days of OCR, 15-20 years ago. I hear how the padding MindWanderer pointed out didn't click, but it was a quiet background component and didn't register as clashing for me. Same with Chimpa's problem with the intro build still fading out after the melody took over; that didn't clash to my ear or bother me either. Solid extended build with the piano and into the melody finally arriving at :32, but the mixing wasn't sharp. Loved the transition stuff from :57-1:00; great signal of a change in the energy level. The core drumbeat plodded after 1:00 and sounded like it was far away and stapled underneath (as opposed to souunding like it shared the same soundscape as everything else). The melody was also super conservatively handled from 1:00-1:51, which was a more significant negative when the overall arrangement was so short. Dayum, a 20-second fadeout within a 40-second outro? I liked these final bars, but they still repeated for too long (1:51-2:32), even with a fade out for the last 20 seconds, IMO. It's not shocking that the others feel the overall arragement needs more development. I think the substance of the arrangement's being shortchanged, but I can see where the others are coming from, as the middle section's very melodically conservative, while the final outro's very repetitive. I'm more hung up about the mixing needlessly sounding lossy and hope there's a way to brighten this up, but I do hope you're willing to add some more substance and/or variation to the second and third sections, especially if you had no interest in adding any length to this arrangement (which isn't necesary, IMO). Really strong foundation here, Neon! You're talented enough that I think you could revisit this and push it over the line here. NO (borderline/resubmit)

If everything were just about voting on source tune choice, this would always get my vote. Nothing but great memories playing this game as a teenager. Koji Kondo is a legend of legends. The arrangement premise here certainly has my attention. Opening synth at :27's generic, but spacey, so we'll see where it goes. Melody arrives at :47 and the soundscape's somehow cramped, muddy, and too loud. Arrangement-wise, it's a relatively straightforward transposing, but it's effective, albeit too loud as I said. By 2:50, I was waiting for this to go somewhere else due to the repetition here. 3:17 hit a different section, but I'd argue it should come earlier by trimming some fat. 3:36 went back to :47's section with a cut-and-paste, and I was waiting for any sort of variation. Once 4:17's melody arrived for a last run and it was still the same, I threw in the towel. Again, I like the concept, and in a vacuum, I could even go for just looping and vegging out to this one. But once you've gotten to 2:34, you've essentially heard it all, and that ain't gonna do. I'll leave it to other judges to better detail how they'd tweak the mixing/production. Maybe listening to some Mario Galaxy would stoke some further ideas to vary the instrumentation and/or textures up; this doesn't necessarily have to overhaul anything, but you've lots of repetition within a slow-tempo'ed, 5-minute piece, and that's difficult to look past. Awesome base here though, Mel; I'd love to hear how much more you can develop this. Even if this somehow didn't get passed and posted, you're on my radar now, and I'm genuinely looking forward to what else you come up with. NO (resubmit)

Intro fade-in was interesting. Opening synths are generic, and the beat added in at :34 lacked power, but we'll see where this goes. By 1:00, the intro dragged, so I'm glad it went to the melody at 1:07. Super flat synth for the lead, with sustains that lacked punch. I liked the doubling of the chorus with the chip sound. Nice little Mega Man X blast SFX at 2:15 going into the next iteration of the melody, but when that sound effect dissipated, the soundscape sounded so barren, with almost 0 contrast from the first version; same thing happens again at 3:23. Where's the meat? The arrangement concept is solid, but more needs to be done to develop and vary the instrumentation; right now it's very repetitive and lacking in dynamics from section to section. If you can make your leads not sound so stilted and vary up the instrumentation/textures from verse to verse and chorus to chorus, this would be in great shape. Good foundation here, Alexander, but it's - whether unintentional or not - skimping on the detail work needed to make a fully realized concept. You definitely have the potential to get something approved here, so I hope you're willing to revisit this one and/or submit more material in the future. NO (resubmit)

Ooooooooh, it's awesome to hear from you again, Kevin. Really good to see that you're still doing music! I never forgot about this piece: https://ocremix.org/community/topic/9395-no-final-fantasy-5-distant-world/ - You're gonna think I was upset it was never resubmitted. It was something where the arrangement was super strong and had a nice atmosphere, so I would have loved to have heard a revision on it to tighten up the mixing. Always thought you had promise and hoped you'd continue making music no matter what. Nice whistling intro, followed by the guitars coming in at :15. I liked the doubled leads at :31; very unique tone on them. Not a big fan of the distorted guitar from :51-1:06; it's not inherently bad, it's just mostly panned in the right ear, so the balance isn't pleasing to listen to. Then the backing lines from 1:08-1:27, I guess those are electric guitars as well. The mixing's odd on them and seems to create mud in the same frequency range as something else. Then there's the melody as the warbling lead from 1:27-2:55; the production on that also doesn't work for me. It serves as the lead, but it's not really in the foreground and the drumming and acoustic guitar both sound louder than the lead, which itself somehow has some piercing frequencies. Arrangement-wise, this is creatively expanded, and well-performed; that's rock solid and doesn't need to be changed in any way. Now it's just a matter of mixing/EQing these parts properly so that all of the placement makes sense. Hopefully, a musician judge can give some detailed suggestings on how they'd address this. I could also see this getting some YESes regardless. That said, maybe on monitors, my issues would seem like not as big a deal; I feel like the problems I've noticed are certainly exacerbated on headphones. Great base here though, Kevin, and sincerely wonderful to know that you're still making music. Definitely try to refine this if it doesn't make it; this concept absolutely has a home here and is at least 85% of the way there, IMO. NO (resubmit)

Remixer name: AzureKevin Real name: Kevin Che E-mail: Website: UserID: 38131 Game: Radical Dreamers Name of arrangement: Treasure Beyond Dreams Name of individual song: Ending ~ Le Tresor Interdit My comments: Hello! It's been a loooooong time since the last time I submitted a song! In the past 15 years or so, I've taught myself guitar and have been steadily improving my composition, recording, and production skills. Ending ~ Le Tresor Interdit is one of my favorite video game songs of all time, and I wanted to be able to do it justice with real acoustic and electric guitars. I've been heavily inspired by rock bands such as Porcupine Tree, and my aim was to create an arrangement in that style. I hope it was successful! Thanks for listening!

Sounds very similar to the original to start in terms of apeing the lead, but we heard some support and ornamanetation come in at :31 and voice sampling from :45. A beat comes in from 1:00-1:48 that sounds super dry, lo-fi, and unsync'ed with the timing. That can potentially work, and I see what you're going for with the off-beat, but the sound doesn't click here at all; there's absolutely no synergy and the other parts don't even feel like they share the same soundscape. The second beat from 1:51-2:39 was properly positioned in the background, fit more comfortably and seemed to click together better with the production of the bassline and SFX. After 2:43, the strings sustains didn't sound realistic, but served as semi-effective padding, while the lead became significantly brighter until the dropoff at 3:08. If you're paying attention, you notice the nice and (again) subtle build of an even more optomistic sound from 2:55-3:08 for some effective contrast before the finish at 3:08. Dynamics-wise, I appreciated the understated builds and breaks; very low-key addition and subtraction is going on throughout, and its so, so easy to mistake the laid-back sound of this as lacking energy or substance. Sound design-wise, I generally was digging this; not a blowaway palette, but the glassier leads had a very nice tone to them, the SFX were integrated well, and nearly everything here fits with a kind of trip hop vibe. That said, most of what works comes from directly sampling the original audio (e.g. comparing :12 of the source to 1:13 of the mix, 2:00 of the source to 1:51 of the mix), so I couldn't vote in favor of it without that being replaced by your own instrumentation from the ground-up, otherwise it's a Standards violation due to extensive samping, IMO. IMO, I'd need 1) the direct audio sampling of the original replaced, 2) to hear the beat from 1:00-1:48 replaced with something that's produced to mesh and be properly balanced with the other instrumentation. For #2, it's nearly a quarter of the track and thus a deal-breaker for me. The beat writing could be the same, and I'm not saying it needs to use the same sample, mixing, or effects as the 1:51 beat. Because the texture from 1:00-1:48 doesn't work, the dynamic contrast I was praising elsewhere doesn't really show through there. Hopefully a musician judge can further elaborate and clarify what may be going on. That said, you have a vision for this piece, and it might not fit OCR because of the extensive direct audio sampling, so if we don't get a revision of this, I look forward to hearing something else in your repetoire, Chiptop! NO (resubmit)

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

As soon as this started, I knew the arrangement had the potential to be a winner, as the tone and tempo's completely different than the original. The woodwind lead at :57 was cut-and-pasted at 2:33, which was disappointing; an additional rendition of it with different performance dynamics would have been nice, but there's at least another woodwind providing interplay with it the second time around, so it's a measure of variation. The very ending at 3:20 was flatter than a plateful of piss, i.e. not much of a resolution, but we'll live as the overall presentation was so capably put together. Sweet instrumentation and you folks personalized the source tune well. On the production side though, it's very disappointing to hear the hiss of the recording for the woodwinds audibly jump in at :25, then out at :42, which sounds pretty bootleg and sloppy. No one listened to this on headphones? At least this is a learning experience where you can attempt to reduce hiss on the relevant parts and see how well you can mitigate the issue. More audible start/stop hiss at 1:32, 1:38, 1:42, 2:01, 2:23, 2:25, 2:27, 2:29, 2:31, 2:34, it just keep going on and on throughout. This all messes up the track's immersion and needlessly exposes the multitracking when this is presented to feel like a singular live recording. If hiss can't be eliminated, it's actually better for a track if the hiss is ever-present; at least then, it only really draws attention to itself once, as opposed to here where it comes and goes frequently. A few hits of this here and there would be permissible; we're a hobbyist community with high standards but aim not to make the perfect the enemy of the good. However, the constant back and forth of the hisses added up to dropping this down enough on the production level, IMO. You need to mitigate or eliminate this. Part of that also involves trimming the beginning and end of parts where the hiss is introduced; at 2:01 for example, the hiss arrives half a second before the part does; again, needlessly sloppy I've been doing this for close to 18 years and don't think I've had to reject more than one or two tracks because of hiss, but we're here to innovate, baby; we're in rarified air! I would go YES (conditional), but a fix of this nature might not actually be so easy, so I have to go NO (resubmit) for now. Any of the musician Js giving targeted advice and recommendations on how to address this recording hiss would be extremely appreciated here. Don't conflate the critique for disliking the track. The arrangement and performances are an easy pass, the one production issue of hiss constantly dropping in and out is what's holding it back. Nothing needs to be changed with the arrangement, just a post-production cleanup, so I sincerely hope we see this posted in some form. Chris, Sean, Dan, nice work!

Your ReMixer name - donut Your real name - Chris Erickson Your website - https://twitter.com/donut_doots Your userid - 37679 Collaborators: Sean R. Hanson - marimba, glockenspiel, chimes Deckels (Dan Eckels) - EWI (I played clarinet and soprano/tenor recorder) Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged - Hollow Knight Name of arrangement - Mystic Mycology Name of individual song(s) arranged - Fungal Wastes Composer - Christopher Larkin Link to the original soundtrack (if it is not one of the sound archives already available on the site) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyI7sYvH8pc Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc - This was arranged for the Pixel Mixer's Voidheart album with the premise "what if not sad bugs, but cutie bugs?" for a more whimsical, otherworldly fae-touched feel.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Jorrith was checking on this and let me know that he sent djp a revision WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY back... which Dave seemingly never passed onto us. Boo, djp, boo. (I've overlooked things in much worse fashion, so no hate.) Jorito had no hard feelings about it, which speaks to his class, but we'd still like to apologize for it. I'm sorry to Jorrith, Kaisyn, Andrew, and Jarrod for us dropping the ball, and we're glad to now pick it back up! Listening to the revised version, the mixing of the various parts is much better; you can hear more of the supporting synth writing which helps spice up the instrumental, the vocals were pulled back instead of being so much louder than the instrumental, as well as given some effects & tuning touch-ups alongside chorusing & vocoder layering in parts which added more smoothness, depth, and variety to the performance. Everything glues together so much better as a result. Loved everything else about this updated piece and am happy to flip my vote to YES; I'm sure any concerns djp also had are meaningfully addressed here. Not that the bar rises due to Jorrith's track record, as the original version did pass, but given that djp agreed with my serious reservations, I didn't want this to potentially get veto'ed. The revised version sounds like Jorito's cohesive presentation we've come to expect, and will better stand the test of time. YES

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

From 1:23-1:50's why's the panning so wide??? I don't like that I'm hearing things so weighted in the right ear, when that's not how sound behaves when you're sitting in a room. If I have to stop listening and put on a control track to make sure my headphones are fully plugged in, something's off. Other than the panning issue popping up there and a bit more later on, my previous YES vote still holds and the mixing and sequencing have been improved since then. I was ahead of the curve, but the improvements are a nice-to-have. Still a YES.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Love the opening sound to this. The initial Toad SFX ducked in a seemingly sloppy way at :26; it may be totally purposefully, but awkwardly cuts/drops in a way that felt like a mistake. Melody came in also and things were very structurally conservative; that along with the very steady beats, this was sounding very by-the-numbers and limited in interpretation. By 1:25, I was waiting for this to break out somehow -- not to get crazy, mind you -- just to embrace some additional and distinct interpretive ideas. I really liked the gliding lead at 1:44-2:13; arguably mixed too quietly, but the writing was creative and the effects on all the parts throughout the soundscape were solid. But going back into the source melody at 2:12, the ideas were retreading without much other development. I love the groove, but without something more substantive taking place from 2:12, this is coasting off a great groove and too repetitive. This works great in the sense of a sound upgrade for in-game use, as the groove is nice and you have a logical loop point. Love what's here so far, and it wouldn't take much -- just something meaningful -- to help push this over the top. Changes/variations to the instrumentation (read: percussion!), textures, rhythms, tempo; anything like that can make the presentation feel fresh and evolving. Nice work, so far, Neon, and I sincerely hope you'll see what more you can do to spice it up and develop the concept that additional degree to snag those YESes! NO (please resubmit)

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.